Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options

from the um,-that-doesn't-work dept

It appears that the Fox Network hasn't learned a damn thing from well over a decade of evidence concerning how you deal with people infringing your works. Rather than providing a legitimate and authorized option as part of a business model, Fox has decided to block or delay web access to many of its popular TV shows, trying to push people to watch them on TV. Now there will be some exceptions... for people who already pay a "participating video distributor." In other words, pay more for less.

The whole article linked above is ridiculous. Even the title is wrong. It says:

"Fox Network to limit Web access to its shows."

But that's wrong. People still will have plenty of access... just from unauthorized sources. Then there's this quote from Michael Hopkins, the president of affiliate sales and marketing for Fox Networks:

"We are continually looking at opportunities to provide our pay television distributors with content and products that enhance the value of pay television to subscribers,"

I'm somewhat surprised this even needs to be explained in this day and age, but taking away features and locking them up does not "enhance the value" to anyone. This is the sort of thing lots of companies stupidly do. Rather than actually increasing value, they take away value from one set of people, and pretend that means they've increased value for others. Except, it doesn't work that way. All it really does is piss off all the people you just took value away from.

I actually disagree this time

Mike, there has to be some middle ground in this argument. Fox needs to monetize thier investment in content in some way. They have provided some affordable options here. Hulu+ is $8 a month and subscribers there will be able to access Fox content next day. I am not sure what satellite subscribers pay. If you want it free, you can tune in or wait a week. I don't see a big "driving away" your customer base in this instance.

This fits perfectly with the Murdoch business plan

WHich has been, in recent years, to take away stuff which you used to get for free and then make you pay to have it.
He mainly does it with sport - where it has worked well for him and for the sporting bodies -at the expense of the sports themselves.

@RexNexus I understand Fox needs to make money, but I've been using a free trial of Hulu+ for a bit now, and the issue with that service is the complete inconsistency of its offering. If I sit down to watch Hulu Plus on my Xbox, I should be able to watch it, not get hit with all kinds of restrictions on which shows I can watch on xbox, which I have to watch on the web, which ones have a month delay, which are a week, which are a day.

But pretending that Hulu Plus is equal to the convenience of piracy is a dream land. Believe me, I WANT Hulu Plus to succeed, anything to get away from paying 100 bucks a month for cable tv, I cut that cord a long time ago. But locking up your content then pretending we should pay for ad supported shows doesn't make sense when you don't make it easier to use than piracy.

Re: I actually disagree this time

"I don't see a big "driving away" your customer base in this instance."

Then you are as blind as a bat. They are taking something that they offered for free, and are now trying to make you pay for it, without offering any more value. This is one of the reasons people pirate TV shows in the first place.

If the networks offered an add-supported stream on their web site, then at least they would get something for their efforts. Now, people that don't have the cash, or perhaps the ability to subscribe to one of these pay servers, will have to pirate the material to enjoy it. They have now made some of their customers become pirates. How is that good for anyone?

Re: I actually disagree this time

Re: I actually disagree this time

Because if I want it free, and I want it now, and I don't want to tune in (say I missed it an don't want to wait a week because all my coworkers are talking about it) then my best option is to pirate it. And then fox loses advertisement money, and a customer.

Re: I actually disagree this time

whats the internet equivalent of your hand going over your head from front to back?

just a Whoooosh! noise?

the content was monetized, there are ads in the video that is how fox is suppose to make money, not by making deals with broadcasters. This is just because they are scared of people cutting cable.

So here is what you really get, either people watch it on your site with ads same day or people watch it elsewhere with no ads same day.(or even next day) People who really want to watch something arnt going to wait because you throw up artificial barriers. Put the show on your site, put ads in it and shut up and make your money. Then of course feel free to add extra things to pay subscribers but don't try to make free things cost money, its not gonna work.

Thankfully Im struggling to think of anything on fox that I really care about watching anyway

Murdock's War with the Internet

More of Rubert Murdock's war on the Internet. He hates the Internet pure and simple. He wants the Internet to be a deliverer of information only where users have no input.

Rather than cater to the market he wants to control it and force consumers to comply with his preferred business practices. In a free market it does not work that way. Someone who claims to be conservative politically should understand this.

Why don't you blame the people who choose to infringe and to break the law for a change?

I know how much you hate it when someone blames someone else for their own actions (like how you hate indirect liability), but when it comes to infringement, all you do is blame everyone but the infringer.

Your love of pirates and piracy is so incredibly transparent that it's hilarious that you don't just admit that you're a pirate lover.

I'm somewhat surprised this even needs to be explained in this day and age...

In this day and age I learned that if a mailing from my bank starts with words "In order to serve you better", I know 100% that something will be taken from me - fees increased, conditions tightened etc.

Re:

I don't think you realize the real state of streaming TV today. I have talked to lots of people who regularly use websites like tv-links and fastpasstv and have no idea they are infringing.

You see, we live in the internet era, where people are used to finding whatever they want with a few clicks. The average viewer with little knowledge of IP issues simply assumes that TV shows are available online - why the hell wouldn't they be? And they assume that when they find a TV show online, it's supposed to be there.

The streaming sites are well-made (much better than network streaming offers). You can set up accounts, make comments, connect with facebook and twitter - they are high-quality, professionally designed offerings. So when your average person thinks "I missed last night's Mad Men!" and googles "watch mad men online" then finds themselves at BlinkX.com, they honestly have no idea that they have just stumbled into a den of "thieves". All they see is the quality streaming TV service they have always assumed existed because, and this point cannot be repeated enough, why the hell wouldn't it?

Now, of course, this is exactly why the industry places such importance on "piracy education" - but when a law is so counterintuitive and obsolete that the average consumer is completely unaware of it, the problem is probably with the law, not the consumer.

Re: Re:

Um, you don't have a right to Fox's property. Your options are (1) obtain it legally, (2) obtain it illegally, or (3) don't obtain it at all. If you CHOOSE number 2, then it's your fault and your fault alone.

Mike the Piracy Apologist and his Band of Merry Idiots notwithstanding, that's how it works in the real world.

Fox

Fox and to a lesser extent CBS, are terrible about their shows being available either on-demand or streaming on the internet. What it has meant is that their are episodes of House, Fringe, How I Met Your Mother,(etc.) and others which I miss or fail to record for whatever reason that I do not get to watch. It is not worth it to me (even for 8/month) to try and get these online. I never watch the episode thereby missing something which may make the next episode boring or not make sense. It diminishes the overall experience and story for that season. I used to watch house all the time and now I am kinda "meh" about it.

ABC and NBC have been fantastic about making them available though. Castle, 30 Rock, and Chuck are among my favorite shows and if I miss one I know that I can watch it the next day or sometime before the next episode so I am all caught up for the next week. I used to never watch NBC shows, but I do know all because they let me watch it when and where I wanted to rather than forcing me to be somewhere at this time.

Re:

And what about us people who don't live in the United States who don't get the legitimate option anyway. What are we supposed to do? Where's our legal options?

"Sons Of Anarchy" took two years to get to Australia and then it wound up on the channel oneHD which not everybody can get unless they have a high definition digital tuner AND live in an area that actually GETS that channel. And if we miss an episode? Wait for the DVD? Oh, OK, we'll play by the rules and wait until September to see it. Unless, of course, the DVD company changes their mind (which probably won't happen for "Sons Of Anarchy" but HAS happened for other shows!)

Why? Because I don't live in the United States, I must therefore be a second class citizen who has to wait for Hollywood to finish screwing around and get the content to the WORLD. And the world is a pretty big market.

Sure, our local channels offer what they call "Catch up TV" with SOME shows streaming - assuming that they can get the streaming rights (well done ABC Australia there) but that's assuming that we have high speed internet access which a LOT of Australians don't yet (because they CAN'T get it and I'm talking infrastructure here, not price)

You know, I'm gonna stop now or I'll end up on my "video on demand" rant which always falls on deaf ears anyway. I demand a video on demand service. The best way of getting one outside of the United States? ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS!

Re: Re: Re:

Personal piracy is a civil issue, not a criminal one. So while what you do may be illegal, it is up to Fox how they want to respond - (1) by meeting an obvious market demand, or (2) by wasting millions on lawsuits and anti-piracy efforts.

(2) may be morally justified, but that doesn't mean it's a smart decision. If they choose (2) and go out of business, it's their fault and their fault alone.

Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

Nobody makes anybody become a pirate. This is classic victim mentality. Are you suggesting that if something is once free, it must always remain free?

By that argument, no item can ever increase in price. Fox wants to make $. What else is new?

"Now, people that don't have the cash, or perhaps the ability to subscribe to one of these pay servers, will have to pirate the material to enjoy it."

No, they don't "have to" at all. You choose what to do.

Yes, I'd like to see some shows for free. And I can. If the show I want to see suddenly costs more money (as from zero to more than zero, or whatever), I get to decide how to handle it. Nobody is forcing me to either subscribe or become a pirate.

Re:

"Your love of pirates and piracy is so incredibly transparent that it's hilarious that you don't just admit that you're a pirate lover."

One day, your thick skull will accept the idea that pointing out the reasons that someone pirates is not the same as supporting piracy. Then, perhaps, you can follow the discourse that some lower primates are able to understand.

Re: I actually disagree this time

I don't understand why any of the "broadcast" networks would ever delay their programming. If I have an antenna, I get it for free, in digital HD and in real-time. Add a DVR and I can even skip commercials and/or watch it later. Why does making it available online suddenly make the network think they need to put up restrictions?

Mike's point is that if someone doesn't want to wait the 24 hours (Hulu paid) to a week (Hulu free) and also doesn't want to watch it when it airs or build a DVR setup, they are left with no legitimate way to watch the programming. That one option is illegitimate delivery/piracy. And he's not wrong here.

Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

Exactly. NOTHING a content company can ever do will change the 'value' of their content to a consumer. Drive the costs of pay television back down to something reasonable (closer to the value that consumers put on it) and then you might get them to pay for it. Some consumers will never put a price tag on the value of something though, and thus will never pay for it. If you want to make money from them, you need to serve them something for free with ads that you make money on. The only other option is for them to get it free from somewhere else, and they won't hesitate to do so.

Re: I actually disagree this time

"Fox needs to monetize thier investment in content in some way."

There are ways that make more sense in the modern marketplace.

"I don't see a big "driving away" your customer base in this instance."

It's simple. They offer something for free. Then, they try to charge for that same item. If any customer ceases to be their customer (i.e. doesn't pay, whether through piracy or by simply not watching) then they've driven that customer away. Drive enough away, there goes your base.

There's simply no incentive here for people to pay. Sure, some will, but others will simply do without. Those who do pirate will soon learn that the pirates offer a better service with less restrictions. How is imposing further restrictions going to help?

Re: A Joke

Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

You missed the point. While nobody forces you to opt for the pirate route, companies can generating the driving force to make that route seem more appealing. As the title says DRIVE fans to pirate, not force. And the previous AC never said that Fox forced any1 to become a pirate. My interpretation is they made them choose the pirate solution by providing motivation (ie: charging for content previously available for free or for small fees). I would not pay for anything that was once offered for free without good reasoning, Fox provides no good reason at all.

And then there's the fact that Murdoch is a moron but that's another story ;)

I just got a Roku box this week, plus I have an XBox on another TV. I'm not paying the DISH bill this month - I'm done with paying $80/month and rarely finding anything to watch. Hell, I've already queued up way more than I can possibily watch in the next year on Hulu+. The Rockford Files from start to finish? Hell yeah!

The only place I may suffer is Big 10 Sports, but I'm hoping Big 10 Network will offer a streaming service again this year. If not, there is Sports Bar within walking distance.

Re: Re:

I know they're not necessarily the same thing, but in this case, they are.

My point is that when it comes to indirect liability for infringement, Mike is the first to yell about how we shouldn't blame others for infringement. But when it comes to blaming infringers, all he does is say it's someone else's fault.

Bottom line is that Mike doesn't think anyone should be at fault for infringement, except for the victims themselves. It's absurd.

If someone chooses to pirate, blame that person first and foremost. Once you do that, I might listen to your theories of what other factors led them to infringe. But as it is, Mike blames no one but the victims, and that's bullshit.

Re: Re: Re:

What makes you think the Pirate hasn't done 1 or 2 already? You think that because he has downloaded it, that he hasn't already paid for it? There are quite a few circumstances that would lead a person that has paid for media legally, to then download a torrent of the same material.

DRM server gets shut down.
My CD breaks/is scratched.
I want to watch my DVD on my home Streaming Software.
My DVR went on the fritz or didn't record, and I have Cable.

I have purchased thousands upon thousands of dollars of media in my life that has been lost, stolen, or destroyed.. If I am just buying a license for the media, why do I have to pay full price for it again and again?

I used to "Pirate" games... never again! Why you ask? Because I get them off of Steam now. I get what I want, when I want it, I can put it on whatever computer I choose, and I only have to pay for it once. I had to give up the possibility of reselling the game, but it's worth it! DO THAT AND YOU WILL WIN !

You assume everyone that fits your "pirate" mold, are just freeloading freetards.. you forget the music industry has for years been cheating the consumer..... the get no sympathy from me, game on!

Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

you do realize fox is free w a set of bunny ears?

but if i can't make it home at 7 I have to pay 8 bucks a month or wait a week? If it made sense it wouldn't be a big deal but there is no reason other than old people fighting culture and trying to make extra money when there are better ways to make that money that dont upset the fans

I recently watched Flashpoint via Netflix (Legal). When the show returned to FREE tv there were a few episodes that netflix did not have and were before the new ones. I found on CTV ( Cananda tv ) but I could not stream them from Cananda to the US, so I checked CBS.com and they were not available there either. I BOUGHT the DVD for the last season only to find out the missing episodes were NOT on it. Seems there is a difference between Cananda and USA in the order of the episodes. For 2 weeks I sought a LEGAL way to watch these without missing them before starting to watch live. No Luck! I DVR'd the new ones while I searched so not to have a hole in the series as it were. eventually I used uTorrent and downloaded them and watched them that way. THEY DROVE ME TO PIRACY IF I WANTED TO SEE THEM WITH NO LEGAL OPTION, other than pay for TV , which we DO NOT!

Re: Re: Re:

But you are the only one talking about "blame"

Who gives a damn about "blame"? Companies don't trade on blame. They don't include it in their quarterly reports. This is about one thing and one thing only: smart business models. The smart business decision is the one that makes you more money - and that's not focusing on piracy or taking away legitimate alternatives.

Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

You choose what to do.

You're exactly right.

I pay for a cable subscription, and am in an area that can receive free over the air broadcasts. But if I want to watch a show from Fox without jumping through needlessly inefficient hoops, the only convenient option Fox has left me is an "unauthorized" option. And I will choose to use that option.

Re:

Re: I actually disagree this time

Sorry to reply to my own comment but there are a ton of responses and I can't reply to them all.

I accept that piracy is going to happen, even if Fox (or whomever else) runs all its content instantly On Demand after initial broadcast. Someone somewhere is not going to be able to access it and will pirate it. In this case, Fox is trying to build value for its subscribing services to give you a reason to buy Hulu+ or whatever. They may be failing to connect with fans but thier business objective is legitimate. Offering some product or service for free or at a discounted rate then raising the price is hardly new or unique to Murdoch's empire. I see this as a reasonable step in adapting thier business model. Maybe its not perfect but its something and something is better than nothing.

This piece highlights Mike's doublethink.

"people you just took value away from"

Those are people who weren't paying. They were relying on the "free" model that Mike touts. Fox is presumably finding advertising doesn't pay as much as they want. Note here that Mike holds pricing decisions exist in a fantasy realm (see the "can't compete" piece); Fox is only doing as other businesses do (it's just that they sell pro-war propaganda). -- YET now Mike points out that trying to get people to pay makes them go to pirate sources!

That's just plain DOUBLETHINK.

And by the way, the advertising supported model for "content" isn't going to hold up much longer because of this very contradiction.

I disagree

But it's not to Fox's benefit. As long as OTA broadcasts continue, who could possibly care?
Fox needs to cut off broadcasting, going to cable ONLY to truly get their target audience and find out what the network is actually worth. It'd be an unpleasant surprise.

Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

This is not a reasonable adaptation. They made piracy *more* valuable. That is not how you compete with piracy. There has *ALWAYS* been a black market for *EVERYTHING*. Piracy is *everywhere*. However, piracy only fills needs that are lacking. In general, for physical goods, piracy only fills the needs of people. If people don't need piracy, it goes away. There's no reason for piracy to exist if the manufacturer/producer/etc. has the customer's best interest in mind.

You do *not* provide value to group A by taking away value from group B. The value of the product to Group A is the same. It's now just that it's more value than Group B.

Over-reacting

What's the big deal? The tone of the article would imply that the content is no longer available for free at all, which is quite wrong. They're not taking it away from you. You still get to watch it for free, legally, you just have to wait a little bit.

I would definitely prefer waiting for free content that is legal over getting it immediately from some virus and malware infested piracy site that the MPAA may or may not be watching.

I may be biased, though. I hate the whole "tune in next week for..." crap. I wait for a whole season to be done and then I watch it all in a few days.

Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

what he said ^

Also the broadcast companies are scared and willing to start offering deals with companies like fox, who were starting to let some of their content onto the web with reasonable restrictions, to give them extra money to make their content less available. Ahhh artificial scarcity a scheme that always works so well.

So while the broadcast fox channel isnt effected by people cutting cable the can get more money out of those that are

Bird Hunting and Techdirt

A friend of mine went down to South America to hunt birds. The farm where my friend hunted used to poison the birds, killing them by the thousands, to keep them from eating the crops. One day, someone had the bright idea that instead of poisoning them, they should sell bird hunting expeditions on the farm to rich tourists.

Word quickly got out and soon there was hundreds of hunters lined up, wallets open, to shoot the birds. The farms soon began making more money shooting birds than farming. The farmers soon began to love the birds.

The farmers stopped trying to just kill the birds, and starting thinking of how they could make money, they ended up doing both.

Not surprising.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is exactly what they used to do when Hulu first started. I definitely remember having to avoid spoilers about House, for example.

And if you think Fox is bad, try watching any of the Syfy shows on Hulu. Now, that is a compete and utter mess. Their "window" is about a month - and they keep putting shows on Hulu out-of-order, or weeks before they're supposed to be there, and then pulling them a day later. (Happens with their own website, too.)

Re: Re: Re:

Mike didn't blame Fox for the actual infringement. He blamed them for increasing the value of piracy. Fox went out of their way to make piracy more valuable to someone. If you want to complain about infringement, going after individual users will never get you anywhere (RIAA sorta learned that one, but haven't let it go completely). You gotta figure out why its such a problem. If there is a void in the market that is created by restrictions (government or corporate), the black market will fill it.

Re: Re: Re:

Do try to keep up.

In the stories where innocent people are being prosecuted, the focus is on what's wrong with that situation (innocent people should not be punished without due process, punishments should be just and not excessive and so on).

Here, the focus is on what's wrong with this situation (Fox are only going to encourage more people to pirate). They could do all sorts of things to encourage people to consume their content and not to pirate, but they do the opposite (here, imposing extra restrictions with no benefits for paying).

What is NOT being said, and the words you always try to put into the mouths of Mike and others here, is that piracy is acceptable or justified. If the industry encouraged legal consumption and punished only the truly guilty, we'd have no argument. Sadly, the opposite is happening.

"But as it is, Mike blames no one but the victims, and that's bullshit."

No, your conclusions are bullshit. There's not only one party to blame, all parties can share it. The pirates are to blame themselves, and I don't believe Mike or anyone else has said otherwise. But, the content industry need to realise that they have some culpability. Everything they do to try and game the system in their favour, from DRM to windowing to regional restrictions only encourages piracy. If they realised that and adjusted to profit accordingly, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Re: Bird Hunting and Techdirt

Funny you should mention that. They do the same thing on big game preserves in Africa. The problem is that big game hunting is more profitable than farming, so guess what's gone the way of the dodo? Farms. Instead of using the land to grow food that is desperately needed in the region, landowners opt to turn their land into game preserves and charge megabucks to rich anglophiles, etc to come "hunt" zoo animals.

Re: Over-reacting

You still get to watch it for free, legally, you just have to wait a little bit.

The point is that some customers will wait, and some customers won't. And once the customers who don't wait get accustomed to file-sharing, what are the odds you will lure them back again, even if you change your mind in the future?

Ah, I get it...

Re: Re: Bird Hunting and Techdirt

Perhaps in Africa not the best idea, but the farm my friend hunted on was still a farm, it just had a couple of fields that hunters could shoot in. From what I understand, bird poo is not the healthiest stuff out there, especially all over your food... ewwww ...so for them I guess it was a win.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?

Yes really. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp I can watch it for 'free' on TV, why should I have to wait a week and pay for it to watch it later. [Hint: I shouldn't]

Put this into a 'real' product. Say you go to the store to and see a beautiful orange sitting there. They tell you oranges were free 5 minutes ago, but now you can't have that orange until next week, oh and then it will cost you $5. Of course by then the orange will be moldy and half rotten. You going to come back and buy the orange? Didn't think so.

So, IF I really want to see a video I am not going to wait a week AND pay for it when it was free today and a week from now it's value will be reduced but I will be expected to pay more for the reduced value product.

Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Um, piracy is criminal and civil. And people are pirating things that are available for a very reasonable price, so don't give me the "it's not available so it's OK to steal it" excuse. And even if it's not available, then too bad. You don't get it. Stop making excuses and just admit that pirates choose to break the law, and it's their fault and their fault alone.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you choose to break the law, it's your fault. That's the real world. It doesn't matter if Fox doesn't make something available in the way that you want. That's their choice to make, not yours to make for them. You pirates are just selfish assholes, plain and simple.

Re: Re:

Stealing something and giving it away for free is "real competition"? Please. Stop with the excuses, people. Piracy is an indicator that there are a group of sociopaths who think it's OK to take without permission. Blame the pirates, not the victims. You guys are amazing.

Mike, you've really got a nice bevy of pirate-lovers on your boards. Congrats! Just what you wanted.

Re: Re: Re:

And, AC, if two of those three options are bad for your company and they're going to happen anyway, why wouldn't you offer an option that is a win for your company and a win for your customers instead of ensuring that some people will consume your product without you getting any benefit? Why would you make that choice? It's retarded.

More and more people are cutting the subscription TV "cord" because they know that the future is streaming through the internet. It offers them more options on what they can consume and what they can pay; only companies who fail to see the future of the business are hanging on to these outdated business models and purposfully forcing customers into options that the customers don't want.

Re: Re: Re:

Yep, it is the people's fault that the greed of TV stations puts 20 min(or more) of ads for every hour in a program, it is people's fault that they can't be there on time to watch something for free, it is people's fault that there are no legal alternatives to catch up with a show they like, it is people's fault that the only options they have that are actually easy are illegal, it is the people's fault that nobody licensed one show in some region, it is people's fault that TV producers don't know how to use the web, it is people's fault that the fact that no readily available affordable options creates a black market.

I guess it is criminal too when people recorded TV and lent to the neighbors or coworkers, it is criminal to record TV with a DVR.

Why can't TV stations create their on P2PTV streaming app to monetize things like the Chinese did(i.e. PPTV and QQStream)?

You know on the internet the new channels are streaming services that is why Youtube gets 2.5H/day which is almost on par with the 5H/day of TV.

Start bugging people about it and Youtube and other websites may become the new TV stations in the world.

Just to put it in perspective only in the USA and some parts of Europe cable is actually something that makes money nowhere else people pay for TV like that, but unsurprisingly people do pay for internet.

When people start changing their habits and start watching other things the dumbasses will continue to claim it is because of pirates just like the music industry.

Visible music piracy fell dramatically in recent years but sales didn't go up did they?
The reason? people now can find the same music for free legally that they record just like they did record radio or have other options that are free and legal like Jamendo and Magnatune.

The same is happening to TV, people are starting to produce webshows now give it time and those TV producer will need to compete with webseries that will be global and could be streamed by an app that serves ads.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well when more then a third of the population on earth breaks that law, its probably safe to assume the problem is not with the people doing the breaking.

About the assholes part, well pirates are little a-holes, but they don't come close to the content producers a-holesseness. For years people had to endure all kinds of abuse from louder commercials, to creaping ads in places where they were supposed to not exist, people had no choices now that they found a way around those a-holes are sad, but nobody is going to shed tears for you people LoL

Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

"Nobody makes anybody become a pirate."

That is utter bullshit.

My wife had a legally purchased copy of Grey's Anatomy. Due to copy protection, one of the discs did not play in our laptop. The rest did. So I had to resort to downloading that disc via BitTorrent with the copy protection removed. Burned it to a disc and it worked with no problems.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

"If you want to make money from them, you need to serve them something for free with ads that you make money on."

You mean like how TV networks operated before cable TV existed? It never ceases to amazes how content producers forget how they made money back in the day. Giving something away for free. That sure was crazy.

I will use EZTV and for the one or two shows a year I would watch on FOX.then when they come out on disc i will buy them used locally or off amazon.
i will buy no new MAFIAA products ever again.i will only buy used physical.MAfiAA gets nothing at all form me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can you even read?

Like I said, you are morally correct. But that won't do you or FOX a lick of good. If you have your panties in such a twist that all you can do is complain about pirates well then that's just dandy - nobody can tell you you're wrong, but we are definitely going to laugh as you tilt and windmills while your business crumbles around you.

I'm not trying to give an "excuse" for pirates - I'm trying to give a solution to the content creators.

Piracy represents a market demand. You simply cannot deny that. You can say it's still wrong, and people still shouldn't do it, and that's all fine and good - but it IS an indicator of a very real demand. FOX would be a lot smarter to meet that demand themselves rather than complain that others are meeting it illegally.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me ask you a simple question, and please try to answer it simply and straightforwardly without launching into an emotional speech:

What is the goal of a business?

1) To make money
2) To end piracy

Got that? Let's hear your answer. Yes, you can argue that 2) is necessary to achieve 1) but I haven't actually seen you make that argument - you just keep saying how important it is to stop pirates. So it seems like you are coming at this from a position of moral indignation. Try thinking practically and pragmatically instead!

Re: Re:

Let's see. Day after day articles about: how terrible copyright is, how it shouldn't be enforced, arguing every single possible gray area against copyright holders and for pirates, how great piracy is, etc.

Please, Mike LOVES piracy. It's so obvious it hurts. But for obvious reasons he can't come out and admit how he feels. He's on the fringe far enough as it is. If he explicitly said piracy is great, he'd be pushed over the edge.

It's hilarious to watch him defend piracy day in and day out while he pretends that piracy is not OK if you ask him.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Damn it Marcus, you can only watch free broadcast television at the time its aired, if you miss it its your fault and you have to pay to see it. Thats what you get for not being home get with the program you need permission to watch free tv!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Look dude, if you want to be an idiot I'm not stopping you.

I don't care, you can say whatever you want, if I want to copy something I will not feel bad about it and I don't think it is wrong, I did for awhile and now I don't, I don't even consume that crap you call content and is trying to protect, you people don't get money from me, the only thing you will get is the finger.

Now if I was pirating something there is no one that can stop me from copying anything. I know that and billions of other people also know that, there is no government that can enforce that BS laws you hold so dear.

Want proof?

I can rip a DVD right now!
What are you going to do besides moan?
Nothing that is what.

I can rip a TV show and send it through encrypted mail to all my friends and family, what are you going to do?
Nothing that is what.

You can't do nothing about it, nor law enforcement, nor any government, so you keep trying to annoy people and shame them when they simply don't care, it is not going to work, you are powerless and everybody knows it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

S.978(or was S.968) didn't pass yet, if it does you can bet someone is going to jail, because your ilk want to make some example of people to try and scare the great masses, because they are not going to put millions in prison because of piracy that is for sure.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ah, my mistake. For a brief, insane moment I though you might be persuaded to be a reasonable human being capable of intelligent debate. My bad.

We wouldn't "cry all the time" if the enforcement was a) effective, b) didn't violate existing fair use and due process, violating the rights of innocents in the process, c) didn't call for punishments that far outweigh the crime d) had massive and dangerous unintended effects on freedom and free speech and e) wasn't aiming for an effect better achievable by modernising business models.

So far, none of those is true, and your constant lying about the positions of people you disagree with doesn't help your argument, which so far seems to consist of "my corporate masters' 1992 business model is the only model and anyone who disagrees is a pirate".

If it makes you feel better, try prefacing every post of Mike's, mine and others with "Of course pirates should be punished but....", and maybe it'll make more sense. Else, try getting one of those primates to teach you basic logic, they're way ahead of you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

the old analog signals were a lot more forgiving. The digital signals are either all there or you have a black screen, you dont just get a fuzzy picture like you use to. Lots of people lived in the fuzzy range for many channels so now they don't get those channels at all. Networks have to choose to invest in or rent better towers to get a working signal to all those people that use to get by with a little bit of fuzz, none in my area are choosing to invest anything.

I know in Chicago a few networks have really shitty towers and almost no one can get CBS anymore. They lost their tower on the Sears Tower about a year before the switch and kept talking about building or moving to a more powerful tower than the weak one they currently broadcast from. They stopped talking about moving shortly after the switch and still do not provide a signal to the majority of Chicagoland, all the other networks are hit or miss depending on your neighborhood even with a powered or roof antenna.

While the digital switch certainly provides a better picture its also a much less forgiving signal, I think most people still using rabbit ears lost out on the switch more than they gained.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Out of curiosity, please tell me how it's possible for you to read the site "day after day" and still have no basic comprehension about what's being said? For example:

"how terrible copyright is"

About how overreaching it is and how fair use is being overridden at the same time that corporations are trying to extend its length to infinity. The basic concept of copyright is not a problem, in theory.

"how it shouldn't be enforced"

False. The criticisms are that the enforcement is draconian and damaging, and there are times where it's more productive not to do so. Not that copyright should never be enforced. 2 out of 2 lies, so far.

"arguing every single possible gray area against copyright holders and for pirates"

Copyright is a complex issue, and most of the modern scenarios in question could never have been imagined by the original inventors of the concept. Also, unless you can point somewhere for me where this has actually been said, most such grey areas are argued about in favour of ARTISTS, not "pirates" (e.g. remixers, people who independently come up with similar concepts, people who want to see orphaned works, etc.)

"If he explicitly said piracy is great, he'd be pushed over the edge."

He'd almost certainly be lying and contradict most of the positions he's put forward here. Just as you would be if you said you understood any of the discussions you've trolled.

"That's half the entertainment of this place."

The entertainment is seeing corporate shills like yourself argue for everything that's destroying the industry while attacking the people with solutions as "pirates". Kind of like seeing a cockroach slowly die when trying to get off its back... sad and pathetic, but entertaining and you feel like it might deserve it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Idiots… Does anyone remember why Fox was broadcasting over the air for free to begin with? To compete. They realized that to compete with other broadcasters, they had to provide their content at a higher quality and lower price. It’s called “attracting customers”. They are not new to this, soon they will remember how to compete. Just because there are people dumb enough to still pay for a service they could be getting for free doesn’t mean everyone should have to pay. The reason the pirate bay is even providing television content is because they are a competitor… even if Fox doesn’t like it, they are competing with another provider. When they wise up and try to attract those customers back, they will make more money than they ever have before.

How you ask?

If they provide advertising during their online content streaming… they advertise to an entire world, not just the country they are licensed to broadcast over the air in. Imagine the advertising revenue they can get by providing their content to a few billion more customers.

Re: Re: Re:

I don't think Mike has ever "defended" piracy. Lambasting content companies who continue to make piracy the more appealing option through their backwards thinking is not the same thing as defending piracy.

Re:

I dont want to argue with the general flavor of your post but this just jumped out at me

"Does anyone remember why Fox was broadcasting over the air for free to begin with? To compete. They realized that to compete with other broadcasters, they had to provide their content at a higher quality and lower price."

Are you sure they didn't broadcast for free because thats how all TV was broadcast prior to the invent of cable television?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Funny how you can't just admit that pirates are to blame for their own piracy.

From the point of view of someone like me who doesn't believe in "intellectual property", what you've just said is trivially true.

It's as if you had said "Toyota buyers are to blame for buying Toyotas!" in response to a story about how Ford was driving customers away by not offering the cars customers wanted at prices they were willing to buy.

Well, yes, the customer was ultimately responsible for his decision about where to buy a car, but that doesn't mean Ford made no mistakes, or shouldn't have acted differently if they wanted to capture that business. Nor does it follow that someone who points out Ford's mistakes in an honest effort to help their business succeed must "hate Ford" and "secretly love Toyota".

Not sure how this is new or different?

FOX is not breaking any new ground here. The CW offers shows a week after airing as well. (I do have a weakness for the CW programming!) I just got on a 1 week off pattern of watching the shows I like. Additionally, I am a Netflix and Hulu Plus subscriber. I am saving a TON over having cable and still get some excellent content without being glued to air times over networks.

My last note is just what others above me have said. I have an HD antenna. It works great for everything locally except ABC for me. So even though I can see CW shows and FOX shows when they air, I choose not to do so.

I do not have a problem with the limited 'free' offerings of content that FOX is proposing and it does not seem ground breaking at all. I do understand that advertising does not cover all of the costs and do not have a problem with reasonable prices and limitations. What I do have a problem with are the offerings of companies like HBO and the new CNN tv streaming. You have to be a rip-off cable company subscriber to access their content. I cannot get access to their content online (in a timely manner- dvd's/itunes a YEAR later) legally, no matter how much I am willing to pay.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

Re: I actually disagree this time

The big drive away is that time shifting is fair use and it was widely available in the VCR era but now that we've got newer technologies that could potentially make that easier for everyone Fox wants to turn the clock back to the pre-VCR era and charge people for, essentially, time shifting. That's the big "driving away" your customer base in this instance.

Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

Removing value fro non-Hulu+ subscribers in no way improves value for Hulu+ subscriber. As a subscriber my experience is entirely unchanged. No value has been 'added.' Arguably value was subtracted since I now have to sign in to see Fox's shit.

Re:

Well founded rants are ok. I don't know why big content thinks it's a good business model to force me to plug my laptop into my TV just to see their 'web only' content when it would be easier for me to stream it through my TV's app and has the same end result, but they do. It's completely asinine. More than once I've decided 'that's too much trouble, I'll watch some other show.'

Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

Re:

Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?

Yes.

Why don't you blame the people who choose to infringe and to break the law for a change?

I never said they weren't breaking the law.

I know how much you hate it when someone blames someone else for their own actions (like how you hate indirect liability), but when it comes to infringement, all you do is blame everyone but the infringer.

You're confusing legal liability with explaining the actual business impact of a decision. I thought it was obvious. Actually, it is obvious.

Your love of pirates and piracy is so incredibly transparent that it's hilarious that you don't just admit that you're a pirate lover.

Kill the messenger, huh? I don't see how explaining the consequences of someone's actions is the same thing as "loving" those consequences. I have no "love" for piracy or those who engage in it. But I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't explain the consequences.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

OMG, I don't get everything I want whenever I want it. I want a new BMW. BMW isn't giving them away for free, so there's an under-served market. That means it's OK to steal a BMW. Yippee! Pirate logic!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

And what about us people who don't live in the United States who don't get the legitimate option anyway. What are we supposed to do? Where's our legal options?

You legal options are to do what's legal. It's not hard to follow. If it's not legal for you to get something, you don't get it. Simple.

The problem with you guys is you think you're entitled to get this stuff whenever you want, wherever you want, and for free. Does the rest of the world work this way? No. But since piracy is easy, you think it works this way for pirated goods.

I actually feel sorry for you guys. For Mike too for having such a thieving band of followers. Remember, Mike, piracy is not OK. That's what you said. Funny how NONE of your articles ever actually reflect that sentiment. Actually, it's not funny at all. It just means you're lying. We all know you love piracy Mike. It's OK to admit it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

yes some people get things because they are free. Another LARGE portion of people who pirate do it because its the only way the product is available to them, i could explain further but im sure you already know and are just a jackass

I think you're missing an important point here: an eight-day delay on Fox's crappy shows isn't a big enough deal to push people back to piracy. Hulu is still a lot more convenient than bittorrent, even with the delay.

This probably won't get people to subscribe to Hulu+ all by itself, but for some people who were already considering subscribing (for the old movies and such perhaps), it might push them over the edge.

Re:

yes but Hulu+ subscribers didn't get anything new, all that happened is that everyone else got boned. So if oyu had been watching shows on fox for free and considering signing up for the additional services do you think a move like this will push you towards giving them money our sour your taste for the service? Why not leave what was free, free and provide extras to subscribers to give an incentive for signing up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I want a new BMW. BMW isn't giving them away for free, so there's an under-served market. That means it's OK to steal a BMW."

If your understanding of scarce and non-scarce is that flawed, you have no place in this discussion. You simply don't have the knowledge required. Other copyright supporters must cringe when lines like this get trotted out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

If there's too many commercials, people will move elsewhere. I HATE Hulu's offerings where they interrupt a show with the two commercials as if I'm watching online TV. I'm not. This is the F'N internet! I don't care about the ads! Make one good ad at the beginning, then let me watch in peace. Put up an Adsense and move about your business. But putting in more than 3, I'm going to another source for my entertainment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

No. You had the choice of returning to the place you bought Grey's Anatomy and explaining that one of the disks was defective. After all, you said that the others were okay. But YOU CHOSE a different action.

I'm not against downloading and I don't give a shit about Fox. But at least have the honesty to admit that downloading is your choice (as it has been mine also). Nobody is forcing you. That's the part that is bullshit.

So... You have one service that has just expanded into other territories. It's been established that before hand unauthorized versions of movies were (and still are) downloaded, discussed and found. But you say wait for legal versions.

That isn't what's occurring. People still want to watch their shows, they'll just go elsewhere until the industry gets its act together.

"I actually feel sorry for you guys. For Mike too for having such a thieving band of followers. Remember, Mike, piracy is not OK. That's what you said. Funny how NONE of your articles ever actually reflect that sentiment. Actually, it's not funny at all. It just means you're lying. We all know you love piracy Mike. It's OK to admit it."

Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong through the data. Just because someone doesn't believe in how you would fight piracy (which has already been proven wrong on multiple levels) doesn't make them a pirate themselves. Maybe it's time for a new argument. One that's backed up by something other than heresay.

8 days

I'm surprised nobody seems to have picked up on the absurdity of blocking free access for 8 days after transmission. This is pretty much the mirror opposite of normal practice in the UK, which is to only allow free access for a week (sometimes a bit longer) after a show airs. The obvious aim here is to allow fans to catch up with an episode they have missed, letting them go back to watching live (or perhaps setting the PVR) next time.

An 8 day blockade stops completists who want to watch on television, but who have missed a single episode, from watching that season's episodes on television again, at least until there's a week with no new episode. It seems to have been designed by people who only see the behavior of the 'enemy' (those who don't want to watch on TV), and ignore the lost opportunity for keeping their current TV-watchers loyal.

By all means block free online viewing for a day or so after transmission. This forces fans to try to watch live on TV, rather than saying "No need! I'll just watch online." You can't be part of the water-cooler or social network conversation the next day unless you've watched on TV (or paid). However, after those conversations have taken place, you have an opportunity to capture new fans, who have heard their friends talking and are now curious to see what the fuss is about (ie. the actual episode in question). Having seen it (for free, of course - they're not that curious!), you may well have them hooked for the rest of the season, watching on TV, where you want them.

Shortly after the season is over, or if you're feeling mean, a month or so after transmission, decide it's too late for anyone to catch up and pay-wall the episodes - so you won't cannibalize your DVD sales.

I'd like to hope that the potential of personally targeted advertising will ultimately prove sufficient to pay for a comprehensive, free, possibly even globally-accessible archive of on-demand network television that would be able to give pirate sites a run for their money, but if broadcasters feel that they need to charge some of the time, they should at least charge at times that will help their overall strategy, not hinder it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

You really consider a second trip to the store, after paying for the content, is a reasonable solution? If I boguht the discs, I consider that a license to download for the convenience.physical media is such a pain in the ass to use.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I actually disagree this time

Wow, I knew you were wilfully ignorant but this takes the biscuit... let's see...

1. The only reason why piracy is wrong is because it can represent a lost sale. How was a sale lost in this instance?

2. HE ALREADY BOUGHT THE CONTENT! How is downloading content you already own legally wrong?

3. If it was the DRM that was stopping him from playing the DVD as he stated, how would exchanging for a new one help?

4. What was done wrong here? Instead of travelling back to the store, he stayed home and downloaded a replacement. What was lost? What was done wrong? If anything, he helped SAVE the store money as they no longer had to restock the faulty item as they would have done if he'd returned it!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

And that is why people turn to black markets all the time, you can't change that, you don't even have the power to do so and not even the resources(human or otherwise).

Quote:

The study's main finding:

* Current menthol smokers largely would turn to the black market for menthol cigarettes and for non-menthol cigarettes.
* Black market cigarettes currently exist and likely would expand quickly in response to surges in demand for these cigarettes.
* Thus, a ban likely will not eliminate most of the cigarette consumption by menthol smokers in the U.S.
* The ban may have the unintended consequences of increasing criminal activity and allowing greater youth access to unregulated cigarettes.

So there you have it even the government by its own findings understands that banning something comes with risks, the risk of an emerging black market, what is more it drives people to seek out the illegal alternatives which makes them less likely to even go to the legal options, why bother with the legal expensive offer if you can find everything on the illegal section of the market which you are already forced to use anyways, so the law is not a problem anymore, it also encourages people to keep coming back to that illegal supplier instead of the other legal one and the word of mouth spreads quickly.

The same works for the copyright industry, which is a ban on others to supply something and when there are failing in that distribution on the part of the industry, black markets quick come to life and fill that space at which point it becomes difficult to displace the culture and players involved, you will have to pay through the nose to regain that market after that.

You think you can change how people behave? You think you are above those little facts of life?

Think again billions of people prove you wrong every day. You want to go against the grain and be an idiot that is fine, just don't ask others to "understand" your silly point of view.

Re: Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?

Pirates don't think everything belong to them, they know that any intangible good is up for grabs and they can get it with little to no risk to themselves.

Besides people have every right to copy and share information with whom they wish and it should not be illegal to do so with rare exceptions where everyone inside society agrees too which is not the case with your supposed imaginary property that is not even property is a right to exploit the public space by restricting how it is used.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"""Who gives a damn about "blame"?"""

The AC does, and the industry he shills for does. They honestly, really, truly believe that every downloaded copy of a song/show/movie is a lost sale. Every. Single. One. Dollars out of their pockets. Food snatched from their babies mouths.

You will never get through to people like that. They live in a different reality and will never recognize what you and I know: copying is here to stay. When little old ladies (yes, more than one!) ask me how to find movies on the web... when police chat about jailbreaking their iPhones... when everyday people "infringe" without a second thought or a twinge of guilt... Like Marcus said, morality doesn't come into this equation, and to a very large extent neither does illegality.

Re: Re: Re: Really, Mike? They're driving people to infringe?

"""Yes, you should, because YOU HAVE NO RIGHT. It's not your property."""

Whoa there big boy, calm down. Breathe deeply. Relax.

Now, just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that what you called "property" was not real property at all. Hahaha, ridiculous, I know, but let's just suppose. So, if there is no actual property anyway, and anyone can just come along and make a copy of "it" for their very own, can you see how your position and arguments would just fall apart?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

it is called "logic", refusing to equate the two ideals, so you can dismiss his counter point is a sign you fail to understand
When applying your pirate logic to other things, it fails, not because I don't undestand infinite goods and scarcity, I have followed Mikes blog for several years

By your logic, since so many people murder, rape, steal, speed on the highway, abuse children et al.. because no one seems to follow them, by your reasoning, those old anitquated system of laws should be abolished

of course you are going to come back with some drivel about I do not understand the digital/internet world and have no right to speak to such things, again, when you dismiss someone out of hand, it means you cannot address the discussion at hand, since those things are similar in one way, but yet different, that is where the logic comes into play

bottom line, you have content, you didn't pay for it, you are not a underserved customer, you are a thief and should be treated as such

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yet, you have either failed to understand, or have chosen to ignore, every single basic point raised in favour of your own strawmen. As demonstrated clearly by the idiotic screed above.

"bottom line, you have content, you didn't pay for it, you are not a underserved customer, you are a thief and should be treated as such"

Weird, you didn't pay to access the content here. Either you admit that you're wrong and there are business models that don't require direct payment, or you turn yourself into the nearest authority, as by your own definition you're a pirate.